What I find a bit ironic is that the way they are now implementing reactions would have worked equally well in RTwP, while many of the TB proponents said that it could not be done. (Don't misunderstand me, I don't think it is a bad way to bring reactions to a PC game.)
I’m at work so not able to pay much attention - but level capped at 10 is really interesting. I’m not opposed (or for) that. What’s interesting though is that by 5e, 4 level 10 players can take on one Mindflayer (something like an 8CR) at a time, but definitely not an ulithaird. So the stakes and level seem a little at odds.
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
"Like many of you, I've played BG 1 & 2 a lot over the years, and every time I do, I go back to being a teenager and playing the first game with my sister day of release. It wasn’t my first exposure to Dungeons and Dragons - I'd played Eye of the Beholder and many of the Gold Box games previously (shout out to Gateway to the Savage Frontier and my first time meeting the Zhentarim), but it was the game that made me love the Forgotten Realms.
BG immediately felt special. There was a sense of discovery and companionship - a party that were more than a bundle of character sheets to help me deal with encounters - and even before I left Candlekeep I had a sense of being caught up in an adventure BIGGER than me.
As I played that sense of adventure grew. BG was about forging an identity in a world that was bigger, stranger and darker than anything I'd seen before in a videogame - and discovering things about my character that challenged that identity. I'd never played an RPG before where I didn't have a clear sense of how I'd survive, or who I would be at the journey's end.
There are individual moments that encapsulate all of that, but across the saga, it was a sense of overcoming great odds, and matching wits and power with sinister, fleshed-out antagonists, and a world that was fantastical, dangerous, and credible.
A long time has passed - in the Forgotten Realms and in our world - but that sense of adventure, fellowship and danger is still what drives us. Making Baldur's Gate 3 is a privilege - and you'll be the judge of how much of the spirit you loved in the previous games we capture - but the game we're making has all of our affection and sense of wonder for the world and the series in it. From the themes, plot lines and characters many of you will recognise, to the texture and tone of the world that some people will be discovering for the first time."
For @ThacoBell: from Swen "We really don’t want to spoil anything but we wouldn’t call it Baldur’s Gate 3 if there wouldn’t be a link. Let me just say that we touch upon the story of BG 1 & 2 in meaningful ways, there are returning characters and what happened in BG 1/2/tob leads to what happens into BG3. You won’t necessarily see that at the start of the adventure but you will quickly understand once you get further into the game."
One additional explanation on why it's TB: "From the start we wanted to stay as close to Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition as we could. Making combat turn based felt only natural given that Dungeons and Dragons is turn based by nature. It allows us to replicate the same high stakes combat experience as the tabletop game while still giving players exact control over what happens on the battlefield
The type of world and game we are building, allows for so much that you really need the control. Think of the environment, all the interaction, the systemics you can use against themselves, all of this combined with the actions and spells of DND, you need careful planning, setting up and executing. That works really well in turn based.
Knowing that it’s turn based also allows us to make every combat moment feel unique and very different from the previous fights. You get lot of diversity and we can make each encounter a real challenge.
Combined with all of this, turn based gives each person playing a greater sense of control, strategy, and agency.
And on top of that, turn based works very well in multiplayer."
I’m at work so not able to pay much attention - but level capped at 10 is really interesting. I’m not opposed (or for) that. What’s interesting though is that by 5e, 4 level 10 players can take on one Mindflayer (something like an 8CR) at a time, but definitely not an ulithaird. So the stakes and level seem a little at odds.
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
Or perhaps an full-on old school style expansion a la ToB/TotSC. It's a good sign regardless, imo. That they want to make an epic game with a slow leveling pace, which is what these kinds of D&D CRPG's do best imo. I think some folks who got an early look at parts of the game even commented how slow the early leveling was.
i feel the same. it's like the witcher 3. dos 2 sold so well it's now the gold standered of crpgs. so if your not a fan of that style of game your out of luck.
The problem with this is: You're not out of luck. PF:KM, PoE1 and 2, Tyranny and now PF: WotR - there are options for consumers who want that kind of game.
3 of those are by the same company who deemed them a failure and is very likely to never return to the format. At best they license the engine to someone.
So you have 1 other company doing it and that's it. Not exactly swimming in it.
Pretty sure the first PoE wasn't a failure, which is why we got PoE2. Of course, PoE2 did not perform nearly as well in the market.
IDK but the pirate theme never sell much. Gothic 2 jharkendar DLC is heavily inspired by central american mesoamerican culture and sold well but is the exception, not the rule.
I’m at work so not able to pay much attention - but level capped at 10 is really interesting. I’m not opposed (or for) that. What’s interesting though is that by 5e, 4 level 10 players can take on one Mindflayer (something like an 8CR) at a time, but definitely not an ulithaird. So the stakes and level seem a little at odds.
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
This.
They bit off more than they can chew by choosing Mindflayers as their main villain (or atleast starting villain) for a starting level 1 party (I blame WotC for this more than Larian). I keep hoping its a red herring and mechanic explanation more than anything thing but Sven saying it's hard to balance the encounters has me worried their trying to cram as much epicness in one go.
A dragon fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s
A Lich fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s.
Baldur's gate did it right. Wyverns were brutal in cloakwood. They were epic enough and rare enough in the game that it felt like it was suppose to be a tough encounter. You didn't need a dragon there. That's still one of my worries.
It is disappointing that some TB fans are trying to get the team initiative part changed. Any prospect of me even considering giving the game a try depends entirely on that one thing (with the assumption that all other aspects of the game will be at least ok, and a mod will be forthcoming to increase party size).
i feel the same. it's like the witcher 3. dos 2 sold so well it's now the gold standered of crpgs. so if your not a fan of that style of game your out of luck.
The problem with this is: You're not out of luck. PF:KM, PoE1 and 2, Tyranny and now PF: WotR - there are options for consumers who want that kind of game.
3 of those are by the same company who deemed them a failure and is very likely to never return to the format. At best they license the engine to someone.
So you have 1 other company doing it and that's it. Not exactly swimming in it.
Pretty sure the first PoE wasn't a failure, which is why we got PoE2. Of course, PoE2 did not perform nearly as well in the market.
poe 2 did not sell well as the people disappointed by poe 1 did not buy it.
I’m at work so not able to pay much attention - but level capped at 10 is really interesting. I’m not opposed (or for) that. What’s interesting though is that by 5e, 4 level 10 players can take on one Mindflayer (something like an 8CR) at a time, but definitely not an ulithaird. So the stakes and level seem a little at odds.
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
This.
They bit off more than they can chew by choosing Mindflayers as their main villain (or atleast starting villain) for a starting level 1 party (I blame WotC for this more than Larian). I keep hoping its a red herring and mechanic explanation more than anything thing but Sven saying it's hard to balance the encounters has me worried their trying to cram as much epicness in one go.
A dragon fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s
A Lich fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s.
Baldur's gate did it right. Wyverns were brutal in cloakwood. They were epic enough and rare enough in the game that it felt like it was suppose to be a tough encounter. You didn't need a dragon there. That's still one of my worries.
In the gameplay, two level-one characters not only survived but defeated three bloody intellect devourers. That is absolutely incredible in D&D5e (I hate those little buggers, they are a CR2, but they could wipe out 5th level parties easily). So I think the thralls and mindflayers will be watered down a little if you have to confront them, unlike in PNP.
It is disappointing that some TB fans are trying to get the team initiative part changed. Any prospect of me even considering giving the game a try depends entirely on that one thing (with the assumption that all other aspects of the game will be at least ok, and a mod will be forthcoming to increase party size).
I’m sure this isn’t a ton of solace but presumably if they change it to individual initiative, the ability will be present to go between the modes (either as an option or by modding, one would think).
i feel the same. it's like the witcher 3. dos 2 sold so well it's now the gold standered of crpgs. so if your not a fan of that style of game your out of luck.
The problem with this is: You're not out of luck. PF:KM, PoE1 and 2, Tyranny and now PF: WotR - there are options for consumers who want that kind of game.
3 of those are by the same company who deemed them a failure and is very likely to never return to the format. At best they license the engine to someone.
So you have 1 other company doing it and that's it. Not exactly swimming in it.
Pretty sure the first PoE wasn't a failure, which is why we got PoE2. Of course, PoE2 did not perform nearly as well in the market.
poe 2 did not sell well as the people disappointed by poe 1 did not buy it.
This applies to me. That said, they did make 3 games - even if it’s by one company, that still suggests there is some kind of market for RTwP.
I’m at work so not able to pay much attention - but level capped at 10 is really interesting. I’m not opposed (or for) that. What’s interesting though is that by 5e, 4 level 10 players can take on one Mindflayer (something like an 8CR) at a time, but definitely not an ulithaird. So the stakes and level seem a little at odds.
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
This.
They bit off more than they can chew by choosing Mindflayers as their main villain (or atleast starting villain) for a starting level 1 party (I blame WotC for this more than Larian). I keep hoping its a red herring and mechanic explanation more than anything thing but Sven saying it's hard to balance the encounters has me worried their trying to cram as much epicness in one go.
A dragon fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s
A Lich fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s.
Baldur's gate did it right. Wyverns were brutal in cloakwood. They were epic enough and rare enough in the game that it felt like it was suppose to be a tough encounter. You didn't need a dragon there. That's still one of my worries.
In the gameplay, two level-one characters not only survived but defeated three bloody intellect devourers. That is absolutely nooooot possible in D&D5e (I hate those little buggers, they are a CR2, but they could wipe out 5th level parties easily). So I think the thralls and mindflayers will be watered down a little if you have to confront them, unlike in PNP.
It is disappointing that some TB fans are trying to get the team initiative part changed. Any prospect of me even considering giving the game a try depends entirely on that one thing (with the assumption that all other aspects of the game will be at least ok, and a mod will be forthcoming to increase party size).
On the contrary, it is very appointing! Character based initiative is very important from a tactics and challenge perspective. Team based turns was one of the main faults of the new X-COM games and something any self respecting turn based game should do without.
I’m at work so not able to pay much attention - but level capped at 10 is really interesting. I’m not opposed (or for) that. What’s interesting though is that by 5e, 4 level 10 players can take on one Mindflayer (something like an 8CR) at a time, but definitely not an ulithaird. So the stakes and level seem a little at odds.
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
This.
They bit off more than they can chew by choosing Mindflayers as their main villain (or atleast starting villain) for a starting level 1 party (I blame WotC for this more than Larian). I keep hoping its a red herring and mechanic explanation more than anything thing but Sven saying it's hard to balance the encounters has me worried their trying to cram as much epicness in one go.
A dragon fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s
A Lich fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s.
Baldur's gate did it right. Wyverns were brutal in cloakwood. They were epic enough and rare enough in the game that it felt like it was suppose to be a tough encounter. You didn't need a dragon there. That's still one of my worries.
Sorry, I don't think that is a general rule. You had illithid, dragon and lich encounters in SoD, all lower than 10 levels. I'd say those were very interesting and felt unique to kill such beasts with all you had. So it can be done, and the limit is only designers' and writers' imagination.
I like the lower level cap. It would have been hard to balance one game for levels 1-30 and it would have made it tooooooo long. Also, it immediately screams: "We can get a sequel if everything goes right". Which is exciting for me.
I’m at work so not able to pay much attention - but level capped at 10 is really interesting. I’m not opposed (or for) that. What’s interesting though is that by 5e, 4 level 10 players can take on one Mindflayer (something like an 8CR) at a time, but definitely not an ulithaird. So the stakes and level seem a little at odds.
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
This.
They bit off more than they can chew by choosing Mindflayers as their main villain (or atleast starting villain) for a starting level 1 party (I blame WotC for this more than Larian). I keep hoping its a red herring and mechanic explanation more than anything thing but Sven saying it's hard to balance the encounters has me worried their trying to cram as much epicness in one go.
A dragon fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s
A Lich fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s.
Baldur's gate did it right. Wyverns were brutal in cloakwood. They were epic enough and rare enough in the game that it felt like it was suppose to be a tough encounter. You didn't need a dragon there. That's still one of my worries.
Sorry, I don't think that is a general rule. You had illithid, dragon and lich encounters in SoD, all lower than 10 levels. I'd say those were very interesting and felt unique to kill such beasts with all you had. So it can be done, and the limit is only designers' and writers' imagination.
I like the lower level cap. It would have been hard to balance one game for levels 1-30 and it would have made it tooooooo long. Also, it immediately screams: "We can get a sequel if everything goes right". Which is exciting for me.
Young dragons are fine with level 10. Mind Flayers are CR 7 in 5th edition, so they are fine as well. Even Ulitharids at CR 9 are fine at the end.
Liches I think are not appropriate for level 10, unless maybe as the end boss of a campaign.
The SoD lich (the main one, not the fairly hidden one) was a special circumstance due to the OP gem you got to fight him. In general, I think SoD might have been ever better (I like it a lot) if it had not drawn quite so heavily from SoA monsters and plot elements (Irenicus, liches, dragons, illithids, drows), but that is a different discussion.
But yeah, the level cap question came from me and I am really happy to hear that it is at 10 instead of 20. Original BG series would have been a worse game if you had been level 20 by the time you fight Sarevok under Baldur's Gate.
I am so extremely excited for this game. Every new detail, every new interview, cements for me that I'm going to have an absolute blast with Baldur's Gate III and I know my first playthrough is gonna be as that cool githyanki before I do a playthrough with a character I roll myself bc I love her to death already.
@GenderNihilismGirdle I have got to admit that lady Githyanki does look really cool. I’ll probably at least have her in my party as I plan to play my own character and not one of the origin characters.
We could still have Lich and Dragon encounters in a level 10 group, I believe. Not sure how it works in 5E, but in 3E a mage could become a Lich as early as level 11, making them a viable challenge for a level 10 party. Likewise, we could always meet a younger dragon. Even a pair of Young Adult Dragons would probably make for a very memorable dragon fight.
I'm a teeny bit disappointed with the level 10 cap simply because that means less character building options and an inability to see the full scope of a character's power in a single game, but then again, BG1 had a low level cap too and it wound up being an incredible game, so I'm not penalizing BG3 over it.
I'm more disappointed over the party size limit being 4 characters (which restricts the amount of in-party banter between different companions, if nothing else), but depending on how exactly Larian codes things behind the scenes, it might be something the player can adjust using consoles or mods. We'll wait and see.
I have no issue with the level cap being 10. In fact I actually enjoy the early low level play of Baldur’s Gate 1.
There are a long time since i played BG1 but can you don't fight mindflayers on BG1 with a low level party if i remember correctly; in fact on BG2 they was a pain in the **** even for relative high level parties. My concern with this level cap is that or the fights will become extremely gimmicky or monsters will be extremely nerfed
I also noticed they said all companions are origin characters. So it means that if Minsc is in the game, he is just a follower for a quest or two (for that 5th portrait place), or just a side character who can't be included into the party (similar to Jahan in D:OS 2 - Jahan was a companion in D:OS - but in D:OS 2 he was a source teacher). Why do I think so? It sounds 99.99% unlikely they'll give you a chance to play as Minsc.
Agreed @JuliusBorisov I don’t think that would make Minsc a recruit able party member either. It depends on his situation I guess at the start of the game. Is he still petrified? Or will he have already been released. Either way it wouldn’t really work as an origin character I guess.
That... is bad. And sad. Not a deal breaker, even one companion is better then nothing, but ... sad.
Well, SoS was moddable in the way to increase party size too. Hopefully, this will remain.
Comments
Also level capping at 10 can be seen as something of a tacit admission we will get a BG4.
"Like many of you, I've played BG 1 & 2 a lot over the years, and every time I do, I go back to being a teenager and playing the first game with my sister day of release. It wasn’t my first exposure to Dungeons and Dragons - I'd played Eye of the Beholder and many of the Gold Box games previously (shout out to Gateway to the Savage Frontier and my first time meeting the Zhentarim), but it was the game that made me love the Forgotten Realms.
BG immediately felt special. There was a sense of discovery and companionship - a party that were more than a bundle of character sheets to help me deal with encounters - and even before I left Candlekeep I had a sense of being caught up in an adventure BIGGER than me.
As I played that sense of adventure grew. BG was about forging an identity in a world that was bigger, stranger and darker than anything I'd seen before in a videogame - and discovering things about my character that challenged that identity. I'd never played an RPG before where I didn't have a clear sense of how I'd survive, or who I would be at the journey's end.
There are individual moments that encapsulate all of that, but across the saga, it was a sense of overcoming great odds, and matching wits and power with sinister, fleshed-out antagonists, and a world that was fantastical, dangerous, and credible.
A long time has passed - in the Forgotten Realms and in our world - but that sense of adventure, fellowship and danger is still what drives us. Making Baldur's Gate 3 is a privilege - and you'll be the judge of how much of the spirit you loved in the previous games we capture - but the game we're making has all of our affection and sense of wonder for the world and the series in it. From the themes, plot lines and characters many of you will recognise, to the texture and tone of the world that some people will be discovering for the first time."
The type of world and game we are building, allows for so much that you really need the control. Think of the environment, all the interaction, the systemics you can use against themselves, all of this combined with the actions and spells of DND, you need careful planning, setting up and executing. That works really well in turn based.
Knowing that it’s turn based also allows us to make every combat moment feel unique and very different from the previous fights. You get lot of diversity and we can make each encounter a real challenge.
Combined with all of this, turn based gives each person playing a greater sense of control, strategy, and agency.
And on top of that, turn based works very well in multiplayer."
I personally salute that explanation.
Or perhaps an full-on old school style expansion a la ToB/TotSC. It's a good sign regardless, imo. That they want to make an epic game with a slow leveling pace, which is what these kinds of D&D CRPG's do best imo. I think some folks who got an early look at parts of the game even commented how slow the early leveling was.
Pretty sure the first PoE wasn't a failure, which is why we got PoE2. Of course, PoE2 did not perform nearly as well in the market.
This.
They bit off more than they can chew by choosing Mindflayers as their main villain (or atleast starting villain) for a starting level 1 party (I blame WotC for this more than Larian). I keep hoping its a red herring and mechanic explanation more than anything thing but Sven saying it's hard to balance the encounters has me worried their trying to cram as much epicness in one go.
A dragon fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s
A Lich fight would be cool. But not for 4 level 10s.
Baldur's gate did it right. Wyverns were brutal in cloakwood. They were epic enough and rare enough in the game that it felt like it was suppose to be a tough encounter. You didn't need a dragon there. That's still one of my worries.
poe 2 did not sell well as the people disappointed by poe 1 did not buy it.
In the gameplay, two level-one characters not only survived but defeated three bloody intellect devourers. That is absolutely incredible in D&D5e (I hate those little buggers, they are a CR2, but they could wipe out 5th level parties easily). So I think the thralls and mindflayers will be watered down a little if you have to confront them, unlike in PNP.
https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_IntellectDevourer.pdf
I’m sure this isn’t a ton of solace but presumably if they change it to individual initiative, the ability will be present to go between the modes (either as an option or by modding, one would think).
This applies to me. That said, they did make 3 games - even if it’s by one company, that still suggests there is some kind of market for RTwP.
ugh... don't get me started on how they used devourers as mindless monster fodder (for level !...see already started....)
On the contrary, it is very appointing! Character based initiative is very important from a tactics and challenge perspective. Team based turns was one of the main faults of the new X-COM games and something any self respecting turn based game should do without.
Sorry, I don't think that is a general rule. You had illithid, dragon and lich encounters in SoD, all lower than 10 levels. I'd say those were very interesting and felt unique to kill such beasts with all you had. So it can be done, and the limit is only designers' and writers' imagination.
I like the lower level cap. It would have been hard to balance one game for levels 1-30 and it would have made it tooooooo long. Also, it immediately screams: "We can get a sequel if everything goes right". Which is exciting for me.
Young dragons are fine with level 10. Mind Flayers are CR 7 in 5th edition, so they are fine as well. Even Ulitharids at CR 9 are fine at the end.
Liches I think are not appropriate for level 10, unless maybe as the end boss of a campaign.
The SoD lich (the main one, not the fairly hidden one) was a special circumstance due to the OP gem you got to fight him. In general, I think SoD might have been ever better (I like it a lot) if it had not drawn quite so heavily from SoA monsters and plot elements (Irenicus, liches, dragons, illithids, drows), but that is a different discussion.
But yeah, the level cap question came from me and I am really happy to hear that it is at 10 instead of 20. Original BG series would have been a worse game if you had been level 20 by the time you fight Sarevok under Baldur's Gate.
I'm a teeny bit disappointed with the level 10 cap simply because that means less character building options and an inability to see the full scope of a character's power in a single game, but then again, BG1 had a low level cap too and it wound up being an incredible game, so I'm not penalizing BG3 over it.
I'm more disappointed over the party size limit being 4 characters (which restricts the amount of in-party banter between different companions, if nothing else), but depending on how exactly Larian codes things behind the scenes, it might be something the player can adjust using consoles or mods. We'll wait and see.
There are a long time since i played BG1 but can you don't fight mindflayers on BG1 with a low level party if i remember correctly; in fact on BG2 they was a pain in the **** even for relative high level parties. My concern with this level cap is that or the fights will become extremely gimmicky or monsters will be extremely nerfed
Well, SoS was moddable in the way to increase party size too. Hopefully, this will remain.
Bring back Cernd!